the right scoop: Glenn Beck debunks the Ron Paul crazy

Upon the recommendation of Ann Barnhardt's post of Jan. 6th, I read the right scoop post and then listened to Glenn Beck's rant.  Hey, let's call things by their right names.  It was a rant.  Not to knock rants, by the way.  I was on the verge on making one just like it.  The money quote here, lifted from Ann's website:

"Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue—one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice—and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; or [2] payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or [3] the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die."
--Osama Bin Laden
(The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)

Yes, I know Paul is off the reservation when it comes to the question of Islam. But Glenn Beck also rightly points out that Paul is right on other questions. The question for me is this: what is the most important thing? Because you are going to have to do some triage here. You are going to have to prioritize what you think can be saved, or if anything can be saved at all.

As for my own rant, well, I wonder if I can take it cuz I ain't a young man anymore. This stuff can give you a stroke or heart attack if you really let it get to you and I am not exaggerating. If you're dead, you can't do much. How much can you afford to care? In my own case, I have to decide that issue and decide it quick. If I were to let my passions overtake me, well, that could be all she wrote. You wonder about that when you listen to some of the nonsense that comes out of certain people and whether or not you can really make any difference whatsoever.

No, the thing I wanted to rant about, well, I'll just tone it down. I can't afford to go nuts over this. But I've covered part of this already on previous posts. The right is just making excuses about the media bias. That's one. You can't blame it all on the media. Reagan beat the media. If you are intelligent about it, you can beat them. I also pointed out how the Griswold decision brought forth the Roe v Wade and abortion. So this is where I could really get started on a rant. But, I'll pull my punches just a bit.

You see, the whole deal is with Romney not being able to answer the question gets to the point on how much does he really care about it? If he did, he would be able to answer it with a killer answer. Instead, he can't, and the conservatives are booing Stephanopolous, while they should cheering him on. That's because Steph just did them a great favor by serving up a hanging curve ball right there in the middle of the strike zone. Romney should have hit it out of the park, but he whiffed.  But the so called conservatives don't seem to have the snap to understand why Romney whiffed and why the rest of the field dropped the ball too.

Griswold relates to "right to privacy" and as I mentioned before, that is a logical inconsistency. There is no absolute right to privacy. The constitution provides for the interests of the government in finding criminals, if there is probable cause. The interests of the government trumps rights to privacy in that instance. But not only there, but in other ways. I also mentioned another way, with respect to the tax law, in which it is one example that the right should have been on like a "duck on a june bug". There's no right to privacy at all in financial transactions. The reason being that the government has an interest in collecting taxes. If they can't peer into your finances, they can't enforce the tax code. Therefore, the right to privacy is not absolute.

But why should their not be a right to privacy in contraceptive cases, nor in abortion cases? For the same reasons as for financial transactions. If the government has an interest in the matter. So what's the government interest in this matter? To have as many abortions as possible? To reduce the birth rate down to less than replacement levels so that immigration is the only way to replenish the population? Is that what the government really wants? Or would the government really rather have American citizens having babies so they don't have to import new citizens because the native born citizens aren't too interested in reproducing themselves in order to have a new generation of Americans. Seems like a legitimate government interest, if only somebody would bother to articulate it.

So what exactly is the so called conservatives doing about all these women who get pregnant and for whatever reason decide they don't want the kid? Do you just preach to them about morality or do you do something practical in order to help these women do the right thing in the moral sense, as well as the right thing for the country in the long run? You see, I think it is a lot like Romney. They like to say the words, but they don't like to actually do anything about it.

And you wonder why I would want to be on a rant? Here we are with these problems and what exactly is anything anybody is doing about them? That's what gets my dander up and makes me crazy.  What are you prepared to do?  Anything?  Or would you just rather talk and let things continue as they are?

We wouldn't be in half the messes we are in if they would do some common sense things in order to improve matters. But I think they are like Romney. They would like to just say a few words to make some shallow people happy for the moment, but when it actually comes to being the time to do something concrete about the problem, they are nowhere to be found.

We wouldn't be having the problems with the Islamic countries if we were taking care of our business. But we are off fighting someone else's wars.

For all of Paul's craziness, I think he has a point. But maybe not a very good one. Still, he is consistent and he is sincere. Which is more than I can say about Romney.

Not saying I'd vote for Paul. But the so called conservatives had better get their act together because there's not much time.